Now that the rumor of George Bush's functional illiteracy has surfaced in the press, Karl Rowe the head of the Bush campaign has denied it vehemently. 'Governor Bush is an avid reader.'

Unfortunately for Karl Rove, even if he dodges the CIA-leak bullet, he’ll never dodge the fact that he’s a chickenshit little weasel. Bush said that he would fire any White House staffer who leaked the name of CIA operative Valerie Plame — of course, now that his right-hand man is implicated, the goalposts have shifted. It’s no surprise that the Bush administration is more interested in deflecting controversy than accepting responsibility. What is surprising is that any self-respecting public figure — even a back-room player like Rove — would rather lurk in the shadows like Rasputin than step forward to clear up the mess. But maybe that's exactly what chickenshit little weasels do.

Except, of course, that there's no evidence that Rove ever "leaked" this information to anyone. Not that CIA "agents" who hate their countrydon't toe the Bush administration line and attempt to subvert necessary operationsdetermine the facts are really any use to anyone.

However, it's certainly great to see that in an era where moronic religious fanatics and deranged foreign dictators are seeking to destroy our citizenry, we're consistently fixated on complete non-issues at the domestic level.

Actually, I think they're somewhat useful. However, I totally agree with you about moronic religious fanatics being a problem.

The real problem today is not the need for people to feel superior -- it's the unwillingness of some people to admit they are less intelligent or capable than others. In other words, the classic sin of envy. This leads, in extreme cases, to the homocidal levelling of Marist socities, and, in more moderate cases, to the mediocrity of European and American liberal politics.

What Gould and others ignore about the LSAT, IQ, etc., is that these tests are in fact objective, and allow for individuals of all races and classes to succeed (or fail) on their individual merits. It's true, of course, that people from more affluent backgrounds tend to do better, as they have better educations and are therefore better developed mentally, on average. Just as importantly, if not more so, more affluent parents in a general meritocracy like the U.S. will usually be genetically more intelligent,and will pass on that intelligence to their offspring. There is, of course, nothing "unjust", or "unfair" about this, unless we want to hate nature for creating inherent inequalities in individuals.

The bottom line is that some people are in fact more intelligent and capable than others, just as some are better athletes than others. We can try to account for the effects of educational privilege by taking economic background and educational opportunity into account when weighing test scores. However, to attempt to ignore these differences entirely is incredibly stupid, and will have incredibly negative societal results that would harm everyone.

P.S. The quasi-marxist rhetoric on this website is not only ridiculously naive and ignorant, it is quite frankly astounding after the abject failure and demonstrated intellectual bankruptcy of such ideologies everywhere they have been followed.

I agree with everything you said, but I'm still a little confused with how you think my LSAT translates to IQ. 172=??